J
JReducation
Guest
That’s why we limit our judgment to judging the action, not the soul of the person.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
W
whatevergirl
Guest
Absolutely. It’s not our place…and I feel a profound sadness for those that were abused, and also for those who abused. They had to be so depraved, and lost…to have done these atrocities. Praying for our Church…Thanks for chatting with me about this. I feel a little calmer now. :hug1:That’s why we limit our judgment to judging the action, not the soul of the person.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
lemonbeam
Guest
I don’t get why the media isn’t going after the Archbishop of Milwaukee at the time. The pope is not implicated in this. He was not involved in any cover up.
L
lemonbeam
Guest
The pope is innocent of any wrong doing. Every attempted smear story they throw at him falls short. All you have to do is read the details. For example; in Munich we’re talking about one case, wherein somebody beneath him transferred an accused priest without his knowledge or consent. Then in the case of Milwaukee, again we are talking about one accused priest, who could not be prosecuted by civil authorities and the charges were dropped. Then while the Archbishop was the one and only man who could have done anything, he decided to punt the case to the Vatican instead, where it was delayed for months. Finally, when a response was given, it was given not by Cardinal Ratzinger (currently Pope Benedict XVI), but by somebody completely different, recommending the trial be canceled since the accused priest was dying. He died four months later. Once again, the responsibility lay at the Archbishop of Milwaukee’s feet, because he alone was the only one who had evidence to defrock the accused priest, and yet he tried to pass the buck instead.
That’s it! That’s all the liberal mainstream media has! That is their whole case! Yet with that, they are trying to implicate the pope in some sort of trial by newspaper in which they alone play the judge, jury and executioner.
Since the mainstream news media refuses to do their jobs, let us in the blogosphere once again do it for them. Here are the facts…
FACT #1
The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that sexual abuse of minors is a damnable sin, of the worst kind, in which Jesus Christ himself said it would be better for someone who does this to tie a millstone around his neck and be thrown into the deepest part of the sea. Catholics involved in sexual abuse have not only failed in morality, but they have also failed in Catholicism, in that they are not practicing the Catholic Christian faith at all.
FACT #2
The total number of all priests accused of sexual abuse of minors is less than 5% of all Catholic clergy. That means more than 95% of Catholic clergy have never been accused and are doing their jobs correctly, living quiet and holy lives in service to their parishes.
FACT #3
In spite of what people say about clerical celibacy being a “cause” of these problems, actual statistics indicate that the majority of sex-abuse of minors is perpetrated by married men; step-fathers, uncles, cousins and live-in boyfriends. Statistically speaking, being a celibate man in the Catholic priesthood actually REDUCES your odds of sexually abusing minors. That’s just a matter of statistical FACT.
FACT #4
In the overwhelming vast majority of cases where sexual abuse was reported in the Catholic Church, the alleged victim was a male between the ages of 12 and 18. Victims younger than 12 were almost never reported, and sexual abuse of females was also rare. This is not the clinical definition of pedophilia. It is however a type of predatory homosexuality that seeks to take advantage of underage young men. Therefore the term “pedophile priests” is a misnomer and not based on hard statistical data. A more accurate term should be “predatory homosexual priests.”
FACT #5
Homosexual men are not allowed to become priests in the Catholic Church. In order for a homosexual to become a priest he must lie about his homosexuality just to get into seminary and remain “in the closet” indefinitely. If he is ever discovered to be gay, he would be fired and laicized (defrocked).
FACT #6
Sexual abuse of minors is slightly higher in Protestant churches according to data released by insurance agencies that underwrite them.
FACT #7
Sexual abuse of minors is significantly higher in non-religious institutions that deal with children, particularly public schools, where according to a U.S. government report, a child is literally over 100 times more likely to be molested in a public school than in a Catholic church.
FACT #8
The reforms implemented in the US Catholic Church after the sex-abuse scandal of 2002-2003 have been hailed by child protective services as the most comprehensive ever seen in a public institution and have been cited as a model for other institutions to follow.
catholicknight.blogspot.com/2010/03/pope-to-be-crucified-this-easter.html
That’s it! That’s all the liberal mainstream media has! That is their whole case! Yet with that, they are trying to implicate the pope in some sort of trial by newspaper in which they alone play the judge, jury and executioner.
Since the mainstream news media refuses to do their jobs, let us in the blogosphere once again do it for them. Here are the facts…
FACT #1
The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that sexual abuse of minors is a damnable sin, of the worst kind, in which Jesus Christ himself said it would be better for someone who does this to tie a millstone around his neck and be thrown into the deepest part of the sea. Catholics involved in sexual abuse have not only failed in morality, but they have also failed in Catholicism, in that they are not practicing the Catholic Christian faith at all.
FACT #2
The total number of all priests accused of sexual abuse of minors is less than 5% of all Catholic clergy. That means more than 95% of Catholic clergy have never been accused and are doing their jobs correctly, living quiet and holy lives in service to their parishes.
FACT #3
In spite of what people say about clerical celibacy being a “cause” of these problems, actual statistics indicate that the majority of sex-abuse of minors is perpetrated by married men; step-fathers, uncles, cousins and live-in boyfriends. Statistically speaking, being a celibate man in the Catholic priesthood actually REDUCES your odds of sexually abusing minors. That’s just a matter of statistical FACT.
FACT #4
In the overwhelming vast majority of cases where sexual abuse was reported in the Catholic Church, the alleged victim was a male between the ages of 12 and 18. Victims younger than 12 were almost never reported, and sexual abuse of females was also rare. This is not the clinical definition of pedophilia. It is however a type of predatory homosexuality that seeks to take advantage of underage young men. Therefore the term “pedophile priests” is a misnomer and not based on hard statistical data. A more accurate term should be “predatory homosexual priests.”
FACT #5
Homosexual men are not allowed to become priests in the Catholic Church. In order for a homosexual to become a priest he must lie about his homosexuality just to get into seminary and remain “in the closet” indefinitely. If he is ever discovered to be gay, he would be fired and laicized (defrocked).
FACT #6
Sexual abuse of minors is slightly higher in Protestant churches according to data released by insurance agencies that underwrite them.
FACT #7
Sexual abuse of minors is significantly higher in non-religious institutions that deal with children, particularly public schools, where according to a U.S. government report, a child is literally over 100 times more likely to be molested in a public school than in a Catholic church.
FACT #8
The reforms implemented in the US Catholic Church after the sex-abuse scandal of 2002-2003 have been hailed by child protective services as the most comprehensive ever seen in a public institution and have been cited as a model for other institutions to follow.
catholicknight.blogspot.com/2010/03/pope-to-be-crucified-this-easter.html
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Or the police department, or the DA’s office at the time. Even if he were stripped of his clerical duties at the time, there was no “Megan’s Law” equivalent. Other children would have been still at risk, with an ex-priest pedophile still at large.
There were loads of failures at the time.
J
JReducation
Guest
You make some very good points in the above paragraph. I just wanted to comment on some things. The Archbishop of Milwaukee did not pass the buck. The order that had come from Rome was that these cases were to be reported to Rome.
No bishop can defrock a priest. By the way, the term is no longer in canon law. Canon law says, “dismissed from the clerical state”. No bishop has that authority. Only a pope can dismiss from the clerical state. And even the pope cannot take away a man’s priesthood. All that he does boils down to taking away any authority to celebrate the sacraments and funciton as a priest. If that priest finds himself in an emergency where no one is around, he can legally and validly hear a confession, grant absolution and grant the Sacrament of the Sick.
To dismiss a priest from the clerical state the local bishop must begin the process by gathering information and sending it to Rome. In those days, the process was very long and complicated. Two years ago, Pope Benedict issued a revision of the process. However, the law of the Church says that for a priest to be dismissed on charges of sex with a minor, it must be proven. What they took away is the trial. There is no longer a trial for these cases. The bishop writes his report and sends his proofs. If they convince the Pope, then he signs the dismissal. If not, it goes back to the bishop to start all over.
Rome said to let it go, because the man was dying. This was not an attempt to cover anything. It was an act of mercy. We all know that mercy far exeeds justice. A trial would have taken longer than four months. I don’t know the man’s condition at the time, but there is the possibility that he may not have been healthy enough to stand trial. I don’t know those details.
As to the Munic scandal, the answer to the masses is “Prove it.” No one has come up with any proof that Cardinal Ratzinger did anything wrong. There may have been some prudential errors, but that is not the same as criminal errors. The man was sent to Munich from another diocese. Maybe Cardinal Ratzinger should have asked for more information. But that was not the custom of the day. People at that time felt that it was indiscrete to ask “What kind of sexual improprieties?” That’s what the request said. The man was beign sent to Munich for therapy due to sexual improprieties.
Also, there is no single document that says that the man was incardinated into the Munic diocese. It is very likely that after he authorized the entrance of this priest into his diocese that he had nothing else to do with him. This was not one of his priests. He simply lived in one of the rectories and helped out in the parish. It was the Vicar who gave me permission to help in the parish. Thiis is also believeable, because the Vicar General can grant faculties in the name of the bishop, whithout having to ask the bishop.
Did the Archbishop know of the assignment? Who knows? Most Archbishops of large dioceses assign pastors. The rest of the gang is given over to someone else to move around. The Archbishop gets a list when the assigning is done. Maybe this priest was on a list given to Cardinal Ratzinger. That does not mean that he assigned him, incardinated him into his diocese or that he even paid much attention to the list. Those things usually get filed away. Bishops of very large dioceses do not deal with those little details. They have people whom they trust dealing with those things.
In the diocese where I work the bishop is not in charge of assigning. There is an auxiliary who is the Director of Personell. He does the assigning. The bishop has to confirm the pastors. That is his job. I don’t know if he knows who is in what parish off the top of his head. He knows the pastors, but the associates, I have my doubts, because you’re talking about 200 or so men.
These are just my thoughts.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
G
gam197
Guest
I can understand why the Pope wouldn’t have known but why did the Archbishops not know if as you say there are only 200 men? (Many of the cases in MA came from one seminary and I think at the time boys went into them in during the high school years)
After the first case, one priest announced he had been molested in the seminary and talked to us about it.
I lived in a town in Ma where the first major case came to light - Father Porter. He molested around 200 children as he oversaw the school. I later knew some of these families yet knew nothing until the details came out about how a number of these parents had gone to the Pastors and Bishops on this priest - some many times angrily and yet nothing was done.
There was always an unspoken feeling about this in the community and I remember telling my son who was an alter boy in 1980’s to let me know if anyone did anything inappropriate and jumping once when a nice priest put his arm around my other son’s shoulders in the early 1990’s
The psychology theory at the time - Child Molesters can be cured was very true.
Code:
Priests were seen as" Christ" so to
even talk to a priest - it was more like Yes sir, No sir.There was feeling in community that molestation involved “dirty old men” , kind of what we see in nursing homes today when they grope or touch the young workers. Each priest case is an individual case but some of these men were monsters.
I think all this helped make the church a breeding ground for abuse.
R
rhmom
Guest
I love your post! I just wanted to point out that FACT #5 wasn’t always the case (at least in California). My parents who actually both planned on being religious, my mother was in the convent for a few years, and my father was in major seminary before he left, both told me that there was a sense that homosexuals would make good priests. My father, especially told me there were plenty that he knew in the seminary. I don’t know where that ‘sense’ came from, but they were open about it, and it was only in the last few years that the order came from Rome that it would not be allowed anymore. I remember it in the news, but I don’t remember exactly how long it has been.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
With apologies to those who have in good faith passed on the soundbites being provided by catholic spin doctors, there is some more evidence that has come to light:
nytimes.com/2010/03/19/world/europe/19church.html?fta=y
It would seem that the psychologist in question did not declare this priest “cured” in any sense of the word, nor did he suggest in any way that this man was fit for work in any capacity with children. Hopefully this will lead others to think twice before offering “it was different back then” excuse for abuse.
The article also notes that this information was provided to the archdiocese both orally and in written form due to the Dr.'s concerns. So if this was also treated as a routine communication that wasn’t worthy of the Archbishop’s attention, as was claimed for the initial transfer letter, then something was terribly, terribly wrong in Munich.
nytimes.com/2010/03/19/world/europe/19church.html?fta=y
.
It would seem that the psychologist in question did not declare this priest “cured” in any sense of the word, nor did he suggest in any way that this man was fit for work in any capacity with children. Hopefully this will lead others to think twice before offering “it was different back then” excuse for abuse.
The article also notes that this information was provided to the archdiocese both orally and in written form due to the Dr.'s concerns. So if this was also treated as a routine communication that wasn’t worthy of the Archbishop’s attention, as was claimed for the initial transfer letter, then something was terribly, terribly wrong in Munich.
A
adamsapple
Guest
You are absolutely correct. It’s not a matter that a “cure” was possible, although everyone knew it wasn’t. It’s a matter that the person should have been brought to civil justice. Paedophilia is a violation of the LAW. The Church doesn’t seem to understand, or accept, that they are answerable to civil law as well as their law of God.
The Church seems to think it is above the law, that it can hide or talk their way out of an uncomfortable situation.
It’s about time all hell breaks loose around the Church. They have exceed their authority and have lost credibility.
Rome will burn again.
E
empacae
Guest
That sense is what is called in the vernaulcar as ‘gaydar’ And no you don’t have to be homosexual to posses this sense. I have in my travels met priests who I felt were of the persuasion that had they not took the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, that they would have been well… gay. I have to believe that these souls were true to their vows, married the Church, and found in their instruction that they were men of honour, integrity and intellect. Not all priests I met were great priests, but the couple I met that triggered ‘my spidy senses’ were in fact great priests, good teachers, and compassionate people, never displaying any impropriety.
emp
J
JReducation
Guest
But this is not the question. This is already known. In fact there is more. The therapist complained that the priest was an non-compliant patient.
Hoever, the question on the table is who assigned him and the Vicar General says that he did. This is very possible, because Vicars or Auxiliary Bishops are often in charge of personell matters, not the Archbishop. The Archbishops get a memo that gets filed by a secretary so that it’s available when he needs it.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
anode
Guest
If Cardinal Ratzinger didn’t know, he should have known. The more that comes to light the more it is clear that the diocese was clearly warned about Hullerman and did not adequately supervise him in any way. His subordinates took the fall, but it’s clear where the blame really lies.
W
wanner47
Guest
Funny, I thought only God was omniscient.
The only thing Archbishop Ratzinger was guilty of was trusting his Vicar General to keep him apprised of serious issues like this one. It seems that trust was misplaced. Pope Benedict’s subsequent handling of abuse cases clearly shows that he realized his mistake and is taking steps to rectify issues as best he can.
By the way, this sort of thing happens in every denomination. Check out www.reformation.com or www.stopbaptistpredators.org sometime. This isn’t just a “Catholic” problem as the MSM would like you to think.
R
RobbyS
Guest
Hard as it might be for you to accept , the molestation of children is not as bad as murder, not even if the perp is a priest. Twenty years ago, any cop you tried to sell this idea to would think you were nuts. He knew it went on all the time in families and out. He, if he were Catholic, would be reluctant to believe it of a priest, but then he knew it was possible, just as he knew it was possible among the most upstanding citizens, say the deputy mayor who was a closet homosexuals and occasionally bedded teenage boys. Policemen have seen it all, and few were surprised when the President got caught with an intern in the Oval Office.
D
danonwaveland
Guest
I think you make a valid point here, as you have in other posts on this thread.
God bless,
Dan
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
There are no absolutes here. To assume that the Archbishop is at fault, is just that, an assumption. As I have explained, from personal experience working in many dioceses, assignments are not always done by the Ordinary, except for pastors. The associates are often assigned by a Vicar General or an Auxiliary.
The other point that has to be considered here is the fact that a diocese does ot have the legal authority to shadow a priest 24/7. This may have been the therapist’s suggestion, but canonically it is not allowed, unless you’re a religious. The priest in question is secular. If he decides to go jogging, the local pastor cannot demand that he go with another priest. The pastor is not his religious superior. The recommendation is not practical.
Finally, at the time that the recommendation was made the priest in question was no on assignment. He was a resident at a rectory that was hosting him while he was in therapy. It could very well be that the recommendation was made and was forwarded to the home diocese, because that’s where it is supposed to go. Once the Archbishop does that, he has fulfilled his obligation. No one has said that the Archbishop read the therapist’s report and assigned the priest. That is an assumption, which the Vicar General denies. As I said, it is possible that it happened this way, Vicars often do assign associates.
We, as Catholics, have to be open to all the possibilities based on how our infrastructure is set up. Our infrastructure is very complex and very much unlike that of the secular state. Sometimes we look at these issues through a secular lense. But to understand the possibilities we have to look at these situations from an eclesial lense, that is through the eyes of a Catholic who knows and understands the system of government, chain of commands, and canons that apply to different cases. If we’re not familiar with those things, we should become familiar with them. Then we can say “This should have been done, so let’s put it into place for the future,” or “This could not have been done, because it’s a violation of Canon Law.”
We have to look at all sides with gentleness and inner silence.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
There are no absolutes here. To assume that the Archbishop is at fault, is just that, an assumption. As I have explained, from personal experience working in many dioceses, assignments are not always done by the Ordinary, except for pastors. The associates are often assigned by a Vicar General or an Auxiliary.
The other point that has to be considered here is the fact that a diocese does ot have the legal authority to shadow a priest 24/7. This may have been the therapist’s suggestion, but canonically it is not allowed, unless you’re a religious. The priest in question is secular. If he decides to go jogging, the local pastor cannot demand that he go with another priest. The pastor is not his religious superior. The recommendation is not practical.
Finally, at the time that the recommendation was made the priest in question was not on assignment. He was a resident at a rectory that was hosting him while he was in therapy. It could very well be that the recommendation was made and was forwarded to the home diocese, because that’s where it is supposed to go. Once the Archbishop does that, he has fulfilled his obligation. No one has said that the Archbishop read the therapist’s report and assigned the priest. That is an assumption, which the Vicar General denies. As I said, it is possible that it happened this way, Vicars often do assign associates.
We, as Catholics, have to be open to all the possibilities based on how our infrastructure is set up. Our infrastructure is very complex and very much unlike that of the secular state. Sometimes we look at these issues through a secular lense. But to understand the possibilities we have to look at these situations from an eclesial lense, that is through the eyes of a Catholic who knows and understands the system of government, chain of commands, and canons that apply to different cases. If we’re not familiar with those things, we should become familiar with them. Then we can say “This should have been done, so let’s put it into place for the future,” or “This could not have been done, because it’s a violation of Canon Law.”
We have to look at all sides with gentleness and inner silence.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
danonwaveland
Guest
That’s absolutely true! The first pope, Peter, was not without some pretty serious issues, himself. He’s the one who said ‘nope, don’t know that fella’ three times during Christ’s passion. His successors have not all been shining apples without bruises, either.
It’s the faith in – and personal relationship with – Jesus that sustains, especially the assurance that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. As is often stated, the church is a hospital for sinners, and the ICU is pretty crowded, as it always has been. Sorry for rambling.
God bless,
Dan
D
danonwaveland
Guest
Sorry to go OT, but what does being a Mystical Theologian entail?I’m a Mystical Theologian, not a Moral Theologian.
Br.JR, OSF
God bless,
Dan
- Status